remove_layer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'Remove a layer' but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, reversible, or what effects it has on related data (e.g., features, symbology). Output schema exists but is not referenced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity (2 params, no annotations). Conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required), the description could still be more complete by specifying that removal is permanent, what the output schema returns, or how to target a specific map. The current text leaves critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameter semantics. It does not explain that map_name defaults to null (likely the active map) or provide any context for layer_name. The agent receives no added value beyond the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('layer from a map'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_layer or set_layer_visibility. However, it lacks specificity about which map (e.g., active map or specified map_name) and could be more explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_layer_visibility to hide instead of remove) or any prerequisites (e.g., map must exist). The agent is left to infer usage without help.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.